Template:Did you know nominations/Nainsukh
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Nainsukh
[edit].jpg)
- ... that the Indian painter Nainsukh (d. 1778) is known for his unusually informal paintings of a raja, whose ashes he eventually put in the river Ganges?
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Rectovestibular fistula
- Comment: User:Furius translated from the German, I expanded.
Created/expanded by Johnbod (talk) and Furius (talk). Nominated by Johnbod (talk) at 16:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC).
Nice article. Hook is good and in size, sourced in the article. Article is expanded translation in very good condition. no copyvios detected. QPQ done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, while the article is fine for DYK, there is a problem with the image license which should be addressed before that is used on the main page: can you confirm it is free use in the UK (where the photo comes from)? I'm pretty sure that in the UK the law is different and the license requires demonstration that the image is free in its country of origin.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- It's over 200 years old, & you're asking if it's still in copyright? It isn't. THE UK, and EU, use life of the artist + 70 years. Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have finally managed to add the right template to the Commons image. It only took 20 minutes - no wonder nobody bothers. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
- The previous template was asking whether the image is in copyright in the country in which it was made. In the UK copyright applies to the maker of the image (i.e. the person who photographed the 200-year old painting, in this case probably an employee of the V&A), not the person who made the thing that is being imaged. US law is different. As long as the template is fine, so am I.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- No it applies to both, and the UK equivalent of work for hire also applies. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
- The previous template was asking whether the image is in copyright in the country in which it was made. In the UK copyright applies to the maker of the image (i.e. the person who photographed the 200-year old painting, in this case probably an employee of the V&A), not the person who made the thing that is being imaged. US law is different. As long as the template is fine, so am I.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
- I have finally managed to add the right template to the Commons image. It only took 20 minutes - no wonder nobody bothers. Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
